Concluding Thoughts

This semester I worked an independent study research project based on the question: is there a gap of mid-century music in our current music collection? In order to go about answering this question, I designed an experiment to collect data about folk music specifically whether or not it has been digitized. The starting point of the collection process was the Folkways Collection on the Smithsonian website. That was where I got the names of the folk artists from. Throughout the semester I tracked the discographies of these folk artists and found which ones were available for streaming on Spotify, and if they weren’t, if they could be alternatively bought on Ebay. To confirm the hypothesis, that there is a gap in the availability of mid-century creative works, I did find that there were some albums, more than initially suspected, that weren’t available to consumers from either source. Even on a very simplistic level, with my limited research, this indicates that a hole in the collection does indeed exist.

            Now for the reason that this hole in the collection exists. Based on the readings I have done, when it came to music collection transitions, be it from label to label as a result of business transactions or a evolution of recording technology and media,  there was a tendency for some of the content to get lost. For the copyright possessor, it becomes a financial burden to store, promote, and sell music that doesn’t stand to make a profit. Most frequently, as stated before, it is in the transition process that this becomes most relevant to the owner and that is when the decision to withhold the content from consumers is made. A further question from this project is whether it would be worth it to maintain the availability of a full collection of music for consumption. The problems associated with excessive cost under the label doesn’t go away, so it seems that it would be most efficient for society to take a different approach to solving this problem. Because the market for the music that is currently not available is relatively small, it seems that the best corrective approach would be to change copyright law so that produced content can be preserved and be available for those who seek it. This change could be a shortening of the copyright duration or the inclusion of loopholes or exits under certain conditions, perhaps only when a label decides to halt production on an album or for an artist. With a relaxation of the laws, the problem of disappearing content from specific genres or time periods would be solved as it might allow conversion costs (to new media) to be undertaken by those in possession of the content, or the existing market which would help to increase the percentage of creative works that are preserved. Some labels, like Folkways, already operate in this sort of model leaning more towards preservation than profit, but as my research this semester has shown, that covers far from everything.

My research only scratched the surface, and I got through much less data collection than I would have liked. Based on what I did collect, I think the hole in the collection is larger than I went into this project believing it would be, and this is a bigger problem than originally thought. This may be at least partially a result of the vastness of the music market; I was only studying the Folk genre. The hole in creative work collections seems to vary greatly depending on the medium it was produced in. The film medium has almost entirely been converted to digital format, the hole in the collection is therefore minimal. We can attribute this the limited number of film that can be made due to the high cost of production. Somewhere near the middle we have print where there is a hole in the collection but one less substantive than the one being examined in the music industry. Again this is probably largely the result of print production costs being more excludable than costs associated with music production. With the market flooded with a large array of available options, demand for many albums and artists become lower than what is profitable and their work becomes a casualty of overly generalized copyright legislation. Considering this corrective action, I believe that the best content maintainer will remain the market. It seems to be an ill-suited job for the government, and too big a collection for a single institute like the Smithsonian to manage. The reason the content holes exist is because in many cases, current copyright law encourages the destruction of small market creative works; preservation is simply not financially feasible or beneficial in many cases. With the recommended changes, the market would function as it should and there would be no need of third party intervention to amend the problem of disappearing desired content. It would also function in future as the technology used in producing creative works continues to evolve. Viewing copyright law as more of a fluid entity, as something that will need to change with the ever evolving content mediums especially from the perspective of legislators would be beneficial to keep in mind. Any changes made now would be enacted with current conditions and time frames in mind, but looking to the future, it is likely that the copyright term may want to be shortened even further. Therefore in order to really help what’s going on it would important for copyright law to be open to amendment.

The validity of this project would benefit greatly if a future student would be able to pick up where I left off in the research. Collecting more data would help to verify and solidify the extent of the hole in digitized folk music that I discovered. While my research was able to say that a hole in the collection exists, I don’t think I have enough data to begin projecting the size of the gap. Having more collected data would help to better estimate the size of the content hole we are dealing with, and knowing the size would help to put some numbers on the expected value. With the limited scope of the data I do have, I wouldn’t feel comfortable putting generalizations on either one of those values. I believe that my research process is clear enough that another student would be able to pick up where I left off, and I have been sure to leave the data spreadsheets open for future additions. Not only would it be good to have more data when it comes to answering the bigger questions related to this project, but it would also, in my opinion, be beneficial for a fresh set of eyes to look at and evaluate and analyze the data that has been and will be collected. I have discussed some of my own conclusions, but another person looking at the same information may have new insight to add that I myself haven’t thought of. It is definitely a project that has been designed with continuation in mind. With the ever evolving nature of technology, it is the most fitting research model.

In the case of this study in economics, I’d say that both the process of data collection, as well as knowing what to do with the results are equally important. For my part, I believe I spent more time on the side of developing an effective research process, but looking long-term, evaluating and analyzing the results of the study will be what gives real meaning to the work that has been done. With more data, the results aspect will become the primary player. As it was for me, being able to fine tune, and adjust the process will still remain important. About halfway through the semester, it became apparent that adding in an Ebay search to supplement the Spotify search would help to make the hole I seemed to have discovered clearer. There may be another addition to make to the process which could make it even clearer. It will be important for whoever picks this project up to put weight on both process and results. This question promises to remain relevant, and will probably increase in importance as we move into the future, and I will be excited to see where it goes within the next few years.